Case 2300788/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Wolo v Lionheart Domiciliary Care Services Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300788/2018
- Decision date
- 29 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Ms C Bonner, Mrs C Upshall
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Wolo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Wolo was employed by Lionheart Domiciliary Care Services Ltd as Human Resources Officer from 12 August 2017 on a contract providing one week's notice. The respondents relied on cash-flow difficulties, loss of a client and a reduced need for HR support as the reasons for ending her employment. A draft dismissal letter was emailed internally at 13:03 on 5 January 2018, and the claimant emailed at 15:54 that day to say she was six months pregnant.
The tribunal found that the respondents first became aware of the pregnancy when the claimant's 5 January 2018 email was read, and not before. It rejected the claimant's case that she had previously discussed her pregnancy with any director, including Rosemary, and found the wording of the email was inconsistent with prior disclosure. On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found the claimant had realised the respondents intended to make her redundant and sent the email because of that.
The pregnancy-related dismissal claim, brought under s.99 ERA 1996 or alternatively s.18 Equality Act 2010, was dismissed because the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the first respondent's financial difficulties rather than pregnancy. The claimant appealed on 9 January 2018 but was not offered an appeal hearing because the respondent said it would not overturn the decision.
The separate claim for other payments or deductions from wages succeeded. The tribunal found that the dismissal letter's reference to a month in lieu of notice did not extinguish the unpaid sums still due, and awarded the claimant £373.84 for six days after the change in pay date and £498.46 for the period worked from 1 to 8 January 2018, making a gross total of £872.30.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pleaded under s.99 ERA 1996 or alternatively s.18 EqA 2010. The tribunal found the respondents first learned of the claimant's pregnancy when her email of 5 January 2018 was read, and that the dismissal decision had already been taken for financial/cash-flow reasons and reduced need for HR. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unpaid sums remained due notwithstanding the amended dismissal letter providing a month's notice pay, and awarded £373.84 for six days after the change in pay date plus £498.46 for work done from 1 to 8 January 2018. | Upheld | — | £872 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £872
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.